Toast Round 9 = Collingwood 103-37 West Coast

[Apex36]

Streaking is a conscious thought out decision. It's different.

So is getting out of your seat and hugging a player and ruffling their hair on the boundary line. Please don’t act like this was some sort of reflex action that required no conscious decision making.

 

[sr36]

So is getting out of your seat and hugging a player and ruffling their hair on the boundary line. Please don’t act like this was some sort of reflex action that required no conscious decision making.

Yes I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about whether he was going to cradle a players head if the opportunity arose. A lot of time in the will I won't I deliberation which steakers go through.

There's a heap of research of deterrence theory - 1 week or 1 year is very unlikely to make a difference as a deterrent for an impulse crime is the general consensus.

 

[jmac70]

Streaking is a conscious thought out decision. It's different.

Not if you’re really pissed.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Just saw this news on my X feed

What a bloody joke

Should he have done it - no

Was it malicious - god no

I’m sure Harvey would prefer a cuddle then abuse

Give him a couple of weeks off, give him a season ban suspended if he does it again and move on

Do we retrospectively ban the Essendon fan who hugged James hird ?

 

[jmac70]

Yes I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about whether he was going to cradle a players head if the opportunity arose. A lot of time in the will I won't I deliberation which steakers go through.

The truth is he was probably just feeling really happy, maybe a bit pissed and did what he did. No one got hurt. The player was fine.
And he is banned from probably the thing he loves the most.
It’s ok though because it’s a deterrent and we are all safe now.

Good night and good luck

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Should he have touched the player?
No.
Did he deserve the penalty?
No.
Too severe.

The penety isn't even that bad. He just has to watch the footy from home/the pub for the rest of the year. He will be okay.

 

[jmac70]

The penety isn't even that bad. He just has to watch the footy from home/the pub for the rest of the year. He will be okay.

He likes going to the footy with his mates.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

He likes going to the footy with his mates.

Who doesn't. But it not the end of the world for most of us if you can't go for a bit.

 

[jmac70]

Who doesn't. But it not the end of the world for most of us if you can't go for a bit.

I don’t know how he feels about it. It would hurt for me though. Love going to the footy.
But, I don’t touch players or swear, so I guess I’ll be OK.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I don’t know how he feels about it. It would hurt for me though. Love going to the footy.
But, I don’t touch players or swear, so I guess I’ll be OK.

Its going to hurt. But if he got a two week ban. He would be back on the boundary in a few weeks with a celebrity like welcome back and the camera on him a lot. It would almost encourage the next guy to do it.

 

[manicpie]

Its going to hurt. But if he got a two week ban. He would be back on the boundary in a few weeks with a celebrity like welcome back and the camera on him a lot. It would almost encourage the next guy to do it.

The whole thing looked a bit reactionary to me. I didn't see any malice in it at all. Maybe the AFL could have gone down a different path and given him less of a sentence. A simple explanation to the public and not a public hanging for the poor bloke. I believe they judged a book by it's cover a bit

 

[sr36]

The whole thing looked a bit reactionary to me. I didn't see any malice in it at all. Maybe the AFL could have gone down a different path and given him less of a sentence. A simple explanation to the public and not a public hanging for the poor bloke. I believe they judged a book by it's cover a bit

Last year a Richmond player overreacted when someone tapped him on the back. It was a bad look so the AFL overreacted to his overreaction. In order to be consistent their overeaction to an overreaction has become their standard reaction.

 

[Kirby]

The whole thing looked a bit reactionary to me. I didn't see any malice in it at all. Maybe the AFL could have gone down a different path and given him less of a sentence. A simple explanation to the public and not a public hanging for the poor bloke. I believe they judged a book by it's cover a bit

It’s not about malice. It’s about the potential for malice.

I’m surprised he got 6 months suspended.

He should have got an extra 12 months added on for the face tatts as a deterrence to the kiddies out there watching.

I’m sure he can fill in the 6 months at the coq fights or something.

 

[Vicky Park]

Nobody disagrees with the rule and the concept. The disagreement is whether the punishment not fits the crime taking into account the specifics of the circumstance.

I appreciate where you are coming from with this, and agree that in this instance the punishment could be seen to be disproportionate to the crime.

But we also can’t have a situation where a fan can argue no ill intent when physically interacting with a player during a game, to avoid the punishment. It’s unworkable.

Without wanting to go on and on, one of the interesting aspects to this is the role of the fence in our game. Fans can sit right on the fence, literally within inches of the field of play. I’m wondering if there are any other major sports, where tens of thousands are in attendance, with this kind of fan/player proximity?

It’s another beloved characteristic of our game and one we should cherish and not have threatened by fans taking advantage of the proximity.

After a game, the fence becomes a place of interaction between players and fans, which is again a beloved feature of our game. Although as I noted above, the players control this interaction and can pull back from the fence, with security on hand too.

I read somewhere that Checkers is one player who doesn’t enjoy the after game fence interaction- although I might have that wrong, and I’m sure someone on here will find evidence to the contrary.

I’m waffling now, but ya gotta love the fence and all that it means and symbolises in our game.

 

[Vicky Park]

my mum used to make the best tripe, she would make it in a tomato sauce with chilly and it was delicious

Disgusting stuff. I can still recall the smell when mum cooked it. Awful.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I appreciate where you are coming from with this, and agree that in this instance the punishment could be seen to be disproportionate to the crime.

But we also can’t have a situation where a fan can argue no ill intent when physically interacting with a player during a game, to avoid the punishment. It’s unworkable.

Without wanting to go on and on, one of the interesting aspects to this is the role of the fence in our game. Fans can sit right on the fence, literally within inches of the field of play. I’m wondering if there are any other major sports, where tens of thousands are in attendance, with this kind of fan/player proximity?

It’s another beloved characteristic of our game and one we should cherish and not have threatened by fans taking advantage of the proximity.

After a game, the fence becomes a place of interaction between players and fans, which is again a beloved feature of our game. Although as I noted above, the players control this interaction and can pull back from the fence, with security on hand too.

I read somewhere that Checkers is one player who doesn’t enjoy the after game fence interaction- although I might have that wrong, and I’m sure someone on here will find evidence to the contrary.

I’m waffling now, but ya gotta love the fence and all that it means and symbolises in our game.

Fair enough. I wasn’t for a second suggesting zero punishment, just a lighter one that fitted the circumstance best. That’s generally how the world works in terms of the law.

I get your point that the fence is sacred.

At the end of the day the decision is made and it’s already old news. We will just have to find another supporter in the midseason draft.

 

[sr36]

It’s not about malice. It’s about the potential for malice.

I’m surprised he got 6 months suspended.

He should have got an extra 12 months added on for the face tatts as a deterrence to the kiddies out there watching.

I’m sure he can fill in the 6 months at the coq fights or something.

This penalty isn't going to stop me maliciously punching Owies in the head if the opportunity arises and he gets too close to the fence. But it might work for some other players.

 

[sideswipe]

Fair enough. I wasn’t for a second suggesting zero punishment, just a lighter one that fitted the circumstance best. That’s generally how the world works in terms of the law.

I get your point that the fence is sacred.

At the end of the day the decision is made and it’s already old news. We will just have to find another supporter in the midseason draft.

If you are going to mention “law”, then you might be familiar with the five elements of sentencing, two of which are deterrence and denunciation?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If you are going to mention “law”, then you might be familiar with the five elements of sentencing, two of which are deterrence and denunciation?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not taking this argument any further except to clarify my point….. generally there’s a range of punishments that can be handed out for the same offence and where on the scale that punishment lands depends on the individual case.

 

[sideswipe]

Not taking this argument any further except to clarify my point….. generally there’s a range of punishments that can be handed out for the same offence and where on the scale that punishment lands depends on the individual case.

This punishment was in line with, actually lighter than the Pickett penalty. That’s the end of your argument.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This punishment was in line with, actually lighter than the Pickett penalty. That’s the end of your argument.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

As it should have been given the Pickett incident was different in terms of Pickett having his back to the fence and a lot more malicious in terms of it going hand in hand with a verbal spray. But not light enough. Yes it’s the end of my argument. Been done enough. Don’t know why you can’t just agree to disagree.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Someone in this thread suggested this banned feely touchy guy might be a doctor. I've seen him humbled and apologetic on TV, and wasn't of the impression that he spends his days collecting viruses and handing out scripts. I call liar, liar, pants on fire to this rumour.

 

[MagpieJo]

Correct

Incorrect. You don’t touch a player while the game is going. The next idiot who thinks it will be a good idea will think twice now.

Gees, I can’t believe people don’t get this.

The margin is 5 points, we need the game to finish top, a carlscum fan gets Naicos in a ‘friendly headlock hug’ he slips and hurts his neck, are you guys still thinking it’s nothing?

It doesn’t matter if it’s friendly, if he’s a good bloke, or even if it was his own team, you don’t touch the players, it’s not brain surgery!

Quite frankly he’s lucky it’s not a life ban.

A year is entirely appropriate.

 

[MagpieJo]

This penalty isn't going to stop me maliciously punching Owies in the head if the opportunity arises and he gets too close to the fence. But it might work for some other players.

You think a coward punch is funny?

I’ll support Alfie jail sentence for you

 

[MagpieJo]

I appreciate where you are coming from with this, and agree that in this instance the punishment could be seen to be disproportionate to the crime.

But we also can’t have a situation where a fan can argue no ill intent when physically interacting with a player during a game, to avoid the punishment. It’s unworkable.

Without wanting to go on and on, one of the interesting aspects to this is the role of the fence in our game. Fans can sit right on the fence, literally within inches of the field of play. I’m wondering if there are any other major sports, where tens of thousands are in attendance, with this kind of fan/player proximity?

It’s another beloved characteristic of our game and one we should cherish and not have threatened by fans taking advantage of the proximity.

After a game, the fence becomes a place of interaction between players and fans, which is again a beloved feature of our game. Although as I noted above, the players control this interaction and can pull back from the fence, with security on hand too.

I read somewhere that Checkers is one player who doesn’t enjoy the after game fence interaction- although I might have that wrong, and I’m sure someone on here will find evidence to the contrary.

I’m waffling now, but ya gotta love the fence and all that it means and symbolises in our game.

Brilliant and logical post

The rest of you need to lose the memory of this guy and his mate crying after the 2010 grand final. I’ve spoken to him at the footy and he was very friendly and humble. He still did the wrong thing here, and it could have gone horribly wrong.